Qatar: Israeli Strike

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to speculate on who knew what and when, but I think it is interesting to note what the White House said in response to the attack that took place. The President himself said that the strike on Doha

“does not advance Israel or America’s goals”,

and he feels “very badly” about it. I think those White House comments speak for themselves.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, despite the difficulties that have been caused by this recent action, does the Minister understand the frustration of knowing that the Hamas leaders, who planned the butchery on 7 October continue to know where the hostages are and be involved in that, stay safe? For many people in Israel and around the world, that is a source of frustration. At least understand that, rather than just simply having a blanket condemnation of Israel.

Secondly, there has been a lot of discussion in the press and among commentators as though even the aim of removing the Hamas leadership was illegitimate. I do not remember such discussions when it came to taking out Osama bin Laden. Although I do not want the diplomatic fallout from what has happened, I think the aspiration, at least, to remove the Hamas leadership is one that I have some sympathy with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me just say this: there is no difference in this House about the condemnation of Hamas. There is nobody in this House who would support Hamas or any of its aims and objectives. It is important to remember that. I understand the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make, but you cannot have a situation where a sovereign nation has its sovereignty ignored in the way that Israel ignored the sovereignty of Qatar, particularly, I would say—I think the majority of us would say—when Qatar has played an absolutely crucial role in trying to bring different parties and factions of Israel, Hamas and others together to try to resolve this conflict. I say again that the fact that they are willing to continue with those efforts brings nothing but admiration for them, the Emir and the people of Qatar.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for the courteous way in which she always tries to engage with the issues. I also thank all noble Lords who joined the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, can call me naive, but I was, though the amendment and the changed amendment, trying to address some of the concerns that she raised, particularly in trying to make it clear that it was not a blanket ban but was dealing with a very specific problem that has resulted in and around some schools—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was reading my speech, but I acknowledge that the noble Lord said that in his opening. It is perhaps an unintended consequence, but can he see from the Minister’s response that it fuels arguments that they will be using on Monday? That was always my concern.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a different point. I accept some of that. It was not what the Minister was saying, but I take the point. The noble Baroness raises legitimate points. I do not agree with her on many of them, which is fine. It is not a problem. It is the whole point of debate and discussion. The fundamental point is that the amendment seeks to do what the public space protection orders do not do. They are not a blanket ban on protests. They do not allow people to pick and choose in the way that some people, including the Minister, have highlighted.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and do not believe that school leaders, local authority leaders, NHS vaccine providers and the chiefs of police for an area would pick and choose protests. I do not believe it. The school leaders in our country know and understand what causes alarm and distress to parents and pupils in their area and they would not abuse that power—nor, in 99.9% of cases, would local chiefs of police, NHS vaccine providers or local authority leaders of whatever political party. They are upstanding public servants who understand the responsibility that comes with their post and would not seek to use one of these orders inappropriately, just because there happened to be a protest outside a school.

I was a deputy head teacher. There were numerous protests at different times, about different things. We did not seek to ban or stop them. One occasion was when I reintroduced school uniform. There were people saying how ridiculous it was that Coaker was reintroducing school uniform, but I did not stop them doing that; nor do I believe that school leaders, police chiefs or others in an area would do that.

The amendment seeks, for particular circumstances that we have all seen on our televisions and read about in our newspapers, to give an immediate power for people to act reasonably, not to prevent any protests but to deal with a specific situation where alarm or distress is being caused. Whatever the current law says, it is not dealing with people in that situation. All we seek, in a reasonable way, is to give those people the power, in situations where there is consensus and agreement, to take immediate action to protect those going for a vaccine, or children, staff or parents going to school. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the law to provide that and, because of that, I ask to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.